What can the city gain by joining the county? Lower overhead costs, right? We would eliminate a lot of the municipalites and thus work together for a better Metropolis? Slay and Dooley discussed a possible merger over a year ago but both have said nothing since. I'm interested in what you have to say!



Please vote

Yes - I am for a city/county merger

or

No - I am against a city/county merger.



Please give reasons for or against. This should be interesting!

From the P.O.V. of somebody who enjoys looking at maps, I'd like to see St. Louis's dot go from a medium dot, to a chicago sized dot. Who care's if it isn't necessarily 100% everyone in a downtown district, its just nice.

rustedhinge wrote:What can the city gain by joining the county? Lower overhead costs, right? We would eliminate a lot of the municipalites and thus work together for a better Metropolis? Slay and Dooley discussed a possible merger over a year ago but both have said nothing since. I'm interested in what you have to say!



Please vote

Yes - I am for a city/county merger

or

No - I am against a city/county merger.



Please give reasons for or against. This should be interesting!

I think it's important that you clarify exactly what you are advocating as there are multiple types of city-county mergers that could occur. Are you advocating a:

1. Merged city-county where St. Louis county IS the city of St. Louis?
   
   1. Do cities such as Kirkwood, Clayton, and Bridgeton continue to exist or are they dissolved into the city-county?
2. Merged city-county where the city of St. Louis becomes just another city within the county?
   
   1. Does the city of St. Louis continue to exist or does it become unincorporated St. Louis county.

Louisville recently performed option 1 which effectively increased their population to ~700,000 from ~260,000 (caveats included). Other cities within Jefferson county continue to exist. See wikipedia for reference. I gather from your statements that you would prefer option 1 where all existing cities within St. Louis county cease to exist. This would probably require a majority vote from each of the 91 cities in the county.



My preference for St. Louis, which I have stated before, would be for option 2 where St. Louis becomes the 92nd city of the county. Of course, I would advocate that many cities take the oportunity to merge with neighbors to become larger entities (e.g. Clayton-Richmond Heights-Maplewood).

Mill204 wrote:

rustedhinge wrote:What can the city gain by joining the county? Lower overhead costs, right? We would eliminate a lot of the municipalites and thus work together for a better Metropolis? Slay and Dooley discussed a possible merger over a year ago but both have said nothing since. I'm interested in what you have to say!



Please vote

Yes - I am for a city/county merger

or

No - I am against a city/county merger.



Please give reasons for or against. This should be interesting!

I think it's important that you clarify exactly what you are advocating as there are multiple types of city-county mergers that could occur. Are you advocating a:

1. Merged city-county where St. Louis county IS the city of St. Louis?
   
   1. Do cities such as Kirkwood, Clayton, and Bridgeton continue to exist or are they dissolved into the city-county?
2. Merged city-county where the city of St. Louis becomes just another city within the county?
   
   1. Does the city of St. Louis continue to exist or does it become unincorporated St. Louis county.

Louisville recently performed option 1 which effectively increased their population to ~700,000 from ~260,000 (caveats included). Other cities within Jefferson county continue to exist. See wikipedia for reference. I gather from your statements that you would prefer option 1 where all existing cities within St. Louis county cease to exist. This would probably require a majority vote from each of the 91 cities in the county.



My preference for St. Louis, which I have stated before, would be for option 2 where St. Louis becomes the 92nd city of the county. Of course, I would advocate that many cities take the oportunity to merge with neighbors to become larger entities (e.g. Clayton-Richmond Heights-Maplewood).

To clarify, yes, I would want Option 1. I would make all the former cities into "neighborhoods" - Maplewood, Clayton, Overland, Richmond Heights, etc.



Currently, when jumping from one city to the next you see the difference. But in reality it's just jumping from neighborhood to neighborhood since the metro area is so dense and has a small town feel. In my opinion they should be called neighborhoods in the big picture. What makes Kirkwood and Webster Groves so different that each have to be it's own city? While we're at it, you wouldn't see any logic in Soulard and Lafayette Square being separate cities.



Just look at Sweet Home Chicago: http://www.bigstickinc.com/chicago2_map_large.html

The city is FULL of "neighborhoods", not cities. 222 'hoods



and Meet me in St. Louis:

http://www.bigstickinc.com/stlouis_map_large.html

Many neighborhoods. 27 'hoods (91 county municipalites)





Of course jumping up in population would be a big plus to a merger! One last thing, when stlouis city was a part of the county, was the county just a bunch of little cities or was the WHOLE thing st. louis city?



Sorry for the questions. I'm trying to get a better understanding of this topic----which is why I posted!



RH

Ironically, the County is much in the position the City was in the 1950s, a high in population, employment and tax base, but clear signs of a troubled future. In about ten years, I think it will be more widely evident that the City is revitalizing, while much of the County becoming blighted.



Merger back into the County would not improve the administration or costs of our schools, courts, fire or police. School districts are independent of cities and counties. Our state circuit has enough case load to remain separate of the circuit covering the County. Our fire department is a municipal department. And our police are controlled by the state.



The few effiiciencies gained among our City's "county" offices (Collector of Revenue, Recorder of Deeds, etc.) could be achieved just through City charter reform, similar to how our Assessor is an appointed, rather than elected position. And even if our City became another municipality within St. Louis County, our City could still use many municipal reforms, such as a stronger mayor and/or fewer aldermen.



Simply, there is no quick fix. Many of the City's inefficiencies would not be resolved through County re-entry, but rather, internal reforms. And my personal bias is that the future is brighter within the revitalizing core than the aging ring.

southslider wrote:Ironically, the County is much in the position the City was in the 1950s, a high in population, employment and tax base, but clear signs of a troubled future. In about ten years, I think it will be more widely evident that the City is revitalizing, while much of the County becoming blighted.

I know STL county is losing some of it's population to st. chuck among others...But I think considering it to STL city in the 1950's quite a stretch...Let's be reasonable

Merge now!



I'm tired of seeing the population of "St. Louis" so far down on the national list. It's so unfair, considering the geographical bounderies we're limited to.



And eliminating literally dozens of political redundancies could save a bundle of dollars and maybe improve governmental efficiencies (hey, I can dream, can't I?).

Framer wrote:Merge now!



I'm tired of seeing the population of "St. Louis" so far down on the national list. It's so unfair, considering the geographical bounderies we're limited to.



And eliminating literally dozens of political redundancies could save a bundle of dollars and maybe improve governmental efficiencies (hey, I can dream, can't I?).

Isn't parts of unincorporated St. Louis County considered St. Louis?I know some places in St. Louis County all the way to 270 (and north of it in North County) have a St. Louis address.



Yeah, why don't just merge already? But, as the 92nd municipality. I don't if they could do what Indy and Louisville is doing. I think it would take a lot of convincing to get municipalities aboard.

Framer wrote:Merge now!



I'm tired of seeing the population of "St. Louis" so far down on the national list. It's so unfair, considering the geographical bounderies we're limited to.



And eliminating literally dozens of political redundancies could save a bundle of dollars and maybe improve governmental efficiencies (hey, I can dream, can't I?).

I totally agree!



I wish I knew what a merger would entail but it just seems to make so much sense to merge.



I see so much GOOD work going on in the city. I believe the county would be foolish to do what stl forefathers did when they turned away and split from the county. It's like, it is coming full circle. I'd love to hear what the mayor of affton has to say on this topic. He's been an active poster in urbanreviewstl and seems progressive in his thinking...

To what degree might a Option #2 be considered a pre-cursor to Option #1 (full merger)?

rustedhinge,



You do know that he's not really the mayor of affton, right? He actually posts here too, I think it's bassistonline or something like that. There is no such thing as a mayor of affton.

trent wrote:rustedhinge,



You do know that he's not really the mayor of affton, right? He actually posts here too, I think it's bassistonline or something like that. There is no such thing as a mayor of affton.

How is that possible?



You know what? Never mind. I just saw a map and Affton is NOT even an incorporated city. That's unincorporated county.

bry456 wrote:

trent wrote:rustedhinge,



You do know that he's not really the mayor of affton, right? He actually posts here too, I think it's bassistonline or something like that. There is no such thing as a mayor of affton.

How is that possible?



You know what? Never mind. I just saw a map and Affton is NOT even an incorporated city. That's unincorporated county.

Yep. There is no mayor of Affton, no council, no board of alderrman, no government of any kind. There is also no Affton police force. There IS an Affton School District, however, but school districts are not bound by municipality.

While the economy of scale would initially point to a merger being win-win, I personally have to vote no. Where I am at now:



- if I call the police for anything, they are out within a couple of minutes. This includes minor things such as -- oh I don't know -- a dog barking all night , or if we want to hold an impromptu block party and need barriers.



- when it snows, my streets have been plowed at least twice and salted by the time the last flake falls



- if I want to make a comment or suggestion -- or resolve a problem -- I can call the mayor on the phone, or walk to an alderman's house, sit down, have a beer, and talk.



- building inspections are done by one guy, who's on a first name basis with just about everyone.



- just like the city, there are many parks within walking distance, as well as a pool/aquatic center within walking distance. Any issues or concerns? Just drop by the park director's office any time.



These types of reasons are exactly why many municipalities are reluctant to "merge" with the City -- or even with each other. It's not that anyone fears efficiency or doesn't understand economics. It's the simple fact that we have much more control over our little insignificant slices of the metro area and receive services such as these which we might see as lacking in other areas.



That being said, many cities are waking up to combining certain services such as fire dispatch, dog parks, swimming pools, and so forth. For example, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, Webster, and Shrewsbury have all saved tends of thousands of dollars by merging dispatch. Yet many citizen-facing services are not going to merge for the very reasons I mentioned above -- the feeling of local control and what we feel are premium services versus those in other areas.

^Jeez, where do you live, Mayberry?

Framer wrote:^Jeez, where do you live, Mayberry?

Shrewsbury. It has its share of issues, too. But I know people in Webster, Glendale, Ferguson, Normandy, even Jennings (!) and others that do not want to give up their autonomy, problems or not, in return for economy of scale.

Shrewsbury cops are the worst in St. Louis. A few years ago I was pulled over and ticketed for failure to display front liscence plates correctly. My parents live in Shrewsbury, and have had all sorts of issues with city hall. In fact, that's much of the reason why they are starting to look at other condos, and are planning on moving in a few years if not sooner.



EDIT: I don't want to come off as discouraging people from moving to or living in Shrewsbury. Just commenting on troubles that I've experienced.

Well, whatever. On the other hand, there have been at least a dozen and a half households that have added second stories, and more than have rebuilt on their lots, simply because they don't want to move out of the area. We're talking enormous expense and disruption here, not just remodels, because of an area. You've probably seen some of these (including a complete rebuild on Weil that I personally think is awful, but is now selling for 350K on craigslist).



I don't know anyone who even has an inkling of "issues with city hall," much less willing to move because of them. But to each his own.

You can relax a little bit, that's why I added the edit. You brought up Shrewsbury, and I've had either first or second hand experiences that were very negative in dealing with city officials. You like it, you know others who do, good. Like I said, I'm not trying to knock the city of Shrewsbury, just adding my own experience.

yea 10-4 on that. What are your issues in dealing with city officials? Besides the cops, that is, if you don't mind my asking.

trent wrote:rustedhinge,



You do know that he's not really the mayor of affton, right? He actually posts here too, I think it's bassistonline or something like that. There is no such thing as a mayor of affton.

Yeah, I feel a bit foolish. But I appreciate you bringing this fact to my attention.

bprop wrote:yea 10-4 on that. What are your issues in dealing with city officials? Besides the cops, that is, if you don't mind my asking.

I'd rather not comment, mostly because it was an issue that involved my parents. And my dad especially, which is ridiculous because he is as straight an arrow as they come. Let's just say the city really overstepped themselves on a private taxpayer trying to do the right thing. I hate not to leave details, but I just don't feel it's right because it involved my parents.

Bigger government does not = better government.



Why should the people of Kirkwood, Des Peres, Richmond Heights, Clayton, Ladue, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ....have to suffer to "improve" the standards of others.



You are talking Socialism. Sorry, you can take that dirty dishwater and throw it out with Mike Schoedel

^That is one of the silliest responses I've seen on this forum. Please post and tell me you were being sarcastic.

The Curmudgeon wrote:Bigger government does not = better government.

Uh actually it would be smaller government since uniting all of these municipalities would allow for elimination of redundencies...thereby creating an overall smaller government(read:less employees, less red tape, leaner and more efficient)

The Curmudgeon wrote:Why should the people of Kirkwood, Des Peres, Richmond Heights, Clayton, Ladue, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ....have to suffer to "improve" the standards of others.

If suffering is defined as less bureaucracy and cheaper services for everyone then yes I guess they would be suffering.

The Curmudgeon wrote:You are talking Socialism.

More poeple working together to pool their resources and recieve a better product is Socialism? Wow, I must have missed that one in history class. I guess our entire counrty is full of Socialists.